Slashdot Mirror

It may seem like a solved problem based on reports and videos from laboratories, but it's never been exposed to real world use and everyday wear and tear like this.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic....

That's from January 2010, which means it was actually written mid-2009. That's six years ago, and the original article documents at least one person who was using this technology every day for over six months, outside the lab.

So it was definitely not presented as a solved problem before, but it's also not really a breakthrough; more of a slow evolution and some PR.

after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016 (The Guardian)

US Department of Energy-backed research project led by a US Navy scientist predicts that the Arctic could lose its summer sea ice cover as early as 2016 - 84 years ahead of conventional model projections.

Scientists predict the arctic ocean will be ice free by2012. Or maybe by 2015. Or by the year 2000. Hard to say, really.

What you maroons[] are missing is that there was a study on the flatness of states that was on the nerd news sites recently, and Kansas was not even close to winning. States like Florida are much, much flatter. Kansas is actually rolling hills, even in the part of the State people like to claim as being flat. Just find a topo map.

https://www.google.com/maps/pl...
Anywhere you zoom in, rolling hills. Flat areas are just small patches between hills. The hills are mostly the same height, so it looks pretty flat when you look out across the land and are only looking at the tops.

http://news.nationalgeographic...
Not even in the top 5. My explanation is that perhaps your State has the worst vision?

http://news.nationalgeographic...

*snore*

Get your water where the Colorado river reaches the sea

This is an interesting idea. What would happen if we diverted most of the Colorado river to a piping system to southern California?

I'm sure Mexico would be pissed, but so what?

You do realize that is exactly what happened, and the Colorado River doesn't reach the ocean most of the time now?

My remark was sort of a sarcastic trap.

http://voices.nationalgeograph...

Regardless, it's a been there/done that issue, that water is already gone.

Good luck convincing the PNW that you have the same future planned for the Columbia River.

"other people's water"

Really? You claim ownership of *rain*?

What an odd statement, These other states might seem to have more rights to the water that falls on than than California does.

Seems to me like California should live within the amount of rain that falls in California.

And perhaps we don't want California to do this to our rivers:

http://voices.nationalgeograph...

The once mighty Colorado river

And the last time I checked, individual states do own their rivers.

Sorry Californians - get fitted for your still suits.

Antibiotic resistant microbes predate modern human usage of antibiotics.

I hope you're just being sarcastic, but in case you aren't

http://www.mercurynews.com/sci...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
http://news.nationalgeographic...

a five minute internet search for "California drought history" can point to the fact that California has had water issues for centuries (it can be said of any area as well), it had destroyed Native American Cities and entire empires long before European settlers arrived. A statement in the National Geographic article pretty well sums it up "Unfortunately, she notes, most of the state's infrastructure was designed and built during the 20th century, when the climate was unusually wet compared to previous centuries."

the EU is more prosperous than the US, with a similar population, higher GDP, healthier economy, healthier people, more econonomically secure people, people who live longer, and people who wont far as far or as fast because they have ACTUAL welfare (unlike the POS we call 'welfare' in this nation).

the EU does all this, while having more regulations in their economy. ie, theire economy is "less free" than the US's.
------

as for your question of why the US is successful?
Cotton and slave labor.
That's why.
The US benefited from a unique confluence of circumstances. Much of colonial expansion by the european powers was driven by economic desires, such as the desire to grow cotton (England controlled India in order to grow contton). The US also had prime cotton growing capability. And the US also still had something else, something that England was slowly abandoning: cheap labor in the form of slaves.

The US came to dominate the world cottom market, growing hte lions share. But the margins even larger than everyone else because they didnt have to pay their workers. Everyone bought the cotton, bringing money into the US economy. Money that was invested and used to buy other things.

Really, the economy of hte entire western world was built on Cotton, primarily US cotton, and by extension then on slavery. The US was simply the biggest beneficiary, and that momentum carried our country's economy for many many decades, and really, still is. even the majority of current economic wealth is traced backwards through history, through each subsequent investment, originates in cotton profits.

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/h...
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/africa...
http://www.labornotes.org/blog...
http://www.economist.com/news/...
http://news.nationalgeographic...

Yeah, I don't trust Horner. He also said T.Rex was a scavenger, and that has been proven false:

http://phenomena.nationalgeogr...

He also wants a dino-chicken. Basically, I don't like Jack Horner a terrible amount. It seems to me he very much wants dinosaurs to be different than what other paleontologists find them to be. I guess he is good for stirring up publicity at least.

What are you talking about? Every self-respecting nerd should know that they're still here.

People need to stop picturing all dinosaurs as looking like some kind of leathery reptiles. I mean, we not only know now that velociraptor was feathered, but even how many secondary wing feathers it had (14). Jurassic park would have maybe not been as scary had their "raptors" looked like this. ;)

Meanwhile, some of their descendants today look like this and attack like this.

The beetles are not new, their presence is not a result of global warming but rather of our meddling with natural burn patterns for so many years.

It's not one OR the other. Both factors play an important role.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic....

For something they say takes hundreds of years to breakdown.

On the other hand we are told about the plastics problem yet in the ocean they are surprised the plastics are breaking down as fast as they are. http://news.nationalgeographic...

Nor was there any evidence for, fanged frogs that give birth to live tadpoles. So there is a possibility, however remote, that your winged dragons exist. They probably don't, but you never can be sure.

As I stated before, all the evidence in the world still can't disprove a god was behind it all. There is a difference between evidence and proof.

It is impossible for them to prove you wrong. It is just as impossible for you to prove them wrong. I would think that on a science-based forum, that would be better understood.

I'm pointing out that, since you can't prove them wrong, you should be a little more tolerant of their people's beliefs.

Has anyone studied the effect on the environment of taking all of that energy out of the wind? What if seeds and dust aren't carried as far?

This is such an unfounded concern, I'm not even sure where to start. I grew up in the prairie of Minnesota and I could only hope that the wind is reduced there. It is absolutely brutal at times and causes erosion and top soil loss. Why do you want dust carried far? What seeds are you concerned about falling too close to the parent plant? I just, this hasn't been studied because there's nothing to argue about. Like solar there's a lot of energy to be harvested. There's no way to harvest all of it, a lot of it is dissipated as friction against water and earth and I can't think of one positive purpose of that friction.

How does that affect terraforming?

How does that affect our ability to transform the planet into a more livable human environment? I can't even parse this or apply it to the topic at hand. "How does that affect X?" when X has nothing to do with the discussion just sounds like fear mongering.

What about migratory birds? Has anyone bothered to solve the problem of mass kills during migration season?

This is well documented and researched but I am constantly confused as to why "migratory birds" are the stipulated losses. It's any birds. Migratory or not. And the numbers have been scientifically estimated to be 140,000 to 328,000 per year. But we're getting smarter about designing these windmills to prevent avian death.

These questions will never be answered

Well, the first two are just too fucking vapid and inane to be answered. The latter, I've answered for you.

, I don't think, because the politics that drive wind power are the same as those that drive anthro climate change - "We're right, shut up if you disagree?"

You know, that could be said about any politics anywhere because modern politics are about inaction and hot air. Companies and scientists are trying hard to expand our energy portfolio away from fossil fuels. And that's smart whether it's biofuel algae, solar, wind or even failed corrupt initiatives like corn ethanol. In the end there are going to be regionally localized energy productions that will account for a large amount of that local populace's consumption. This will likely still be augmented by fossil fuels -- maybe as emergency or backup but I don't think we'll ever see them completely removed from the equation.

The Earth is going to be destroyed by people (on both sides of the political aisle) who refuse to take a reasoned approach to our energy crisis. The root causes of our energy shortage, climate change, starvation, hunger, crime, and disease, are all one in the same: OVERPOPULATION.

We're 7 times as numerous as the Earth can sustain. Unless and until we fix that problem, our habitable climate WILL be destroyed.

Scientifically, can you explain how you came to calculate the multiplier of "7 times as numerous as Earth can sustain?" Because the idea that the Earth can only sustain a nice round even number like a billion people raises suspicions. But it's pretty evident that nothing is going to talk sense into you, Malthus. Science and human ingenuity has gotten us past radical adj

@ Applehu Akbar: "The first local settlers walked into a war between the invading Navajo and the agrarian Hopi, a conflict which moved through centuries of war into the American court system, and continues in muted form to this day."

Massive Population Drop Found for Native Americans, DNA Shows

"The number of Native Americans quickly shrank by roughly half following European contact about 500 years ago, according to a new genetic study.

The finding supports historical accounts that Europeans triggered a wave of disease, warfare, and enslavement in the New World that had devastating effects for indigenous populations across the Americas."

I vehemently disagree. I highly recommend taking the 16 minutes and 39 seconds to actually watch the most compelling part of the documentary before trying to wave it away as "gloomy documentaries." For you to say such a thing shows that, contrary to your statement, you are denying the presence of pollution--or at least the social responsibility we all have to improve our health, life spans, and quality of life by regulating pollution.

I live in Washington DC and spend a great deal of time worrying about my health and the health of my children because our air quality here can get so bad that we have Red Ozone Days where we are told to keep our children inside, especially if they have any respiratory conditions, which they are more likely to have thanks to the poor air quality. I think it a blessing that NASA and the EPA monitor our air quality and that the local papers light a fire of panic under everyone's feet about the need to improve it because childhood leukemia and other cancers aren't something we should just shrug at.

Awareness of pollution is why we have Catalytic converters in our cars to dramatically reduce the toxic nature of the exhaust coming out of them. It's why we banned Lead Gasoline and ended the crime wave having that chemical in our brains unleashed on our culture. It's why air quality has improved over the last 10 years as new technologies, improved MPG, and other environmental regulations, but we still have much more to do.

It's also a moral issue for us, because our Made-In-China marketplace is why they have so much pollution. We want cheap goods and they turn a blind eye to the pollution to keep the products cheap. But that pollution is making it's way back to us over the Pacific Ocean. I want to keep buying cheap stuff from China, but I am also willing to pay a little more if it allows the Chinese people to improve their health.

The Chinese government should let people understand the science and choose for themselves.

Seems to depend on type of nova:
http://news.nationalgeographic...
Here, they claim 6500 light years - but it might be for hypernova rather than supernova.

Greek fire is arguably a chemical weapon and well known.

National Geographic has a nice article about the long history of chemical (and biological) weapons,

The real difference in the modern era, it has become an economical form of warfare as well as more effective (higher rate of casualties) than older chemical attacks.

http://news.nationalgeographic... earliest I can find.

I'd tell you to look it up, but then I'd be swamped, like always, with [citation needed] from people who still haven't discovered how google works. Here you go

How about we look at what happened last time the earth 'suffered' increased insolation? The Sahara was green. Offhand I can't find the research article I wanted, but turns out the Sahara greened up during every warm period. Anyway, a couple links as a starter kit:

http://knowledge.allianz.com/e...

http://news.nationalgeographic...

NG doesn't bother either...

Why does Siberia always get the all of the coolest fossils?

Your research is indeed trivial, and wrong

http://www.georgiaaquarium.org...

http://animals.nationalgeograp...

These show the frightening level of ignorance about science in the general US population:
http://news.nationalgeographic...
http://www.pewinternet.org/201...
Depending on which study you look at, apparently only 40% - 66% of Americans even believe evolution is real. What are you guys smoking over there?

This article gives a list of animals that feed on mosquitoes, but not a 100% necessity since they will seek other food sources as well
http://www.mosquitoreviews.com...

This article from National Geographic mentions a spider that 'mostly' feeds on them
http://voices.nationalgeograph...

What are the parameters? Will this genetic variation die out in a localized manner, or will it spread globally and wipe out every mosquito?

Also, if the genetic variant prevents breeding, what is to prevent it from being transferred to another species via a virus?

Bush declared war on Iraq in 2003.

Now I want to see the whitehouse enact absurdly draconian security after some enterprising people unleash some cyber-roaches and some augmented mice (article is on remote controlled rats, but is over 10yrs old. By now the tech should be small enough to deploy on mice) on them.

Just dump shittons of them on the whitehouse one day. Don't even bother to remote control them. Just let the vermin do what vermin do best; seeking out nooks and crannies in the security system there and setting up residence. All those "Spybugs" and rats in the walls would drive the secret service to a foamingly fervent frenzy of paranoia.

These days though, they would call that a terrorist attack though, rather than illustrating that there is no such thing as a secure compound, just a compound with security measures intended to deal with the most dangerous hazards.

It is the lack of perspective there that troubles me most about this modern era. People are fixated on being "Perfectly safe!", rather than "Sensibly safe". Perfectly safe is impossible. Sensibly safe is. Sacrificing the latter to try and get the former only overtaxes you, and is the product of paranoia.

The last time CO2 levels were this high we had a massive die off.

CO2 levels have not been this high in any time period we've been able to provide an estimate for. Look at the historical CO2 levels against temperature.

Yow! That graph is pretty frightening. CO2 basically goes off the chart in the present, way above anything in the past..

That's temperature in Antarctica, though.

-- that graph only goes back half a million years. As a previous poster noted, the last time the CO2 was this high was the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum: carbon dioxide levels spiked, the Earth heated by about 5.6 C, and there was, indeed, a massive die-off. That was 56 million years ago.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic....

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/PETM.asp

About 100 children get "truly" abducted in the US per year: http://www.pollyklaas.org/abou...

Sadly half of them get killed or vanish.
http://www.pollyklaas.org/abou... Not sure how accurate that is, but I saw similar numbers during my googleing.

Regarding lightening the we sites are not as conclusive here it is 400 hits per year: http://news.nationalgeographic...

On others it is about 300. Likelihood of survival is between 70% and 90%.

However: I'm surprised that you are right. People get more often hit by lightening than children get kidnapped (per year).

Yeah, I think you should read this article to get a better idea of the scope of the undertaking you're talking about.

Isn't the warming, sea level rise, and melting of ice verification? If not, what evidence could posisbly convince you?

Since it is a political fight, not a science fight, nothing will convince the deniers. Denialism is stronger thn anything you can imagine. Just like the AntiVaxxer denialists who declared that vaccines caused autism because of the mercury in the preservatives in some vaccines did not change their belief after the mercury was removed, and the autism rates remained the same, and padded the epidemic of autism by incorporation of the "autism spectrum" and were really pissed when researchers removed some people from that spectrum - they have no intention of ever changing their mind, which has been made up bsed on the collaboration od a long discredited corrupt researcher and a lawyer he was working with to make a money grab.

I only bring that up because of the similarity in modus.

Isn't the warming, sea level rise, and melting of ice verification? If not, what evidence could posisbly convince you?

Seen what North Korea looks like at night?

In North Korea, less than 25% of the population has any access to electric power. I doubt if there will be a whole lot of DVD watching..... maybe in schools, or when the rich guy down the street has a party and invites the whole street block to his/her showing of the DVD.

Why do you need to evaluate the credibility of something that's obvious? A similar technique was already used to confirm the identity of the woman in the famous National Geographic photo of the Afghan Girl. The photo was taken before iris scanning was practical as biometric security. But the photo contained enough detail (on 35mm Kodachrome slide) that in 2002 they used her iris pattern in the photo to verify that they had found the correct woman.

Any photograph with sufficient resolution and contrast to show fingerprints will work. The point being that although the prints may not show up to the eye in the photo, processing it to enhance the size and contrast may make the prints stand out. I myself have taken a photo of a lecturer using a telephoto, and noticed in post-processing that the photo had sufficient resolution that I could barely discern fingerprint ridges he'd left on the cup he'd been drinking from.

Biometric security based on something you're leaving copies of everywhere is a pretty stupid idea. It just hasn't been exploited enough for the general public to realize that it's stupid.

On the contrary - it's exactly what the means in the eyes of the public, which is the whole reason for that fantasy to be propagated in media.

Here's another one (since, to the contrary of what the parent posted, they're numerous):

"[I]f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty." - James Hansen

http://news.nationalgeographic...

Exactly. Someone's cat picture isn't worth anything to me and apart of a 3 second chuckle in now way makes my life better, but a good book (I have shelves full) is worth the price. Hell even take the electronic copy of the Complete National Geographic. I bought it a few years ago and have bought the updates that have the issues not initially included and I will probably keep buying the updates because they are convenient and really cool. Add in that my wife is a teacher and frequently makes use of it and it was a very worthwhile purchase. I would consider getting a paper subscription but it just seems so wasteful especially given how easy it is to use the electronic copy.

Even if true, it is still basically life as we know it, but since on-one else has been able to replicate the findings...
Besides Mono lake is not a volcanic vent under the ocean. I think the poster was just thinking about how some life has different means of acquiring energy.
http://www.nature.com/news/ars...
http://news.nationalgeographic...

... that are not North-South or East-West aligned?

Actually this is news from at least one year ago

National Geographic did a story about spiders fleeing to higher ground when facing floods. The massed spiders end up enclosing entire trees with their webs.
http://news.nationalgeographic...

For instance, can you explain why the polar caps grew last year (both of them) during "global warming" (or Climate Change)?

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the polar caps will either grow or shrink (or both!) every single year, probably based largely on the local temperatures, amount of precipitation, etc. The real question would be how much they grew versus the average growth, and whether they are growing less than they used to. Saying that global warming doesn't exist because the polar caps grew last year is not evidence. What if the polar caps grow by an average of 10 feet every year, but last year they only grew 6 inches? They still grew, but that fact alone is not evidence that would contradict any of the claims regarding climate change.

For example, according to this data, it looks like the sea ice had below average growth for 2012 and 2014 between August and December, even though the rate is still close to 2 standard deviations from the average growth between 1981 and 2010. Farther down that page, it looks like the growth for all years after 2010 is below the average for 1981-2010, though still relatively close. This is the climate system of a planet we're talking about though, if you're expecting huge dramatic changes from one year to the next you're probably going to be disappointed unless we can get China to really accelerate all of those coal plants being built. Climate change looks like a long-term event, especially right around the times where our damaging effects on the planet are just beginning to overcome the planet's ability to regenerate. But don't worry, the more shit we add to the atmosphere year over year, the faster things will start to change once the planet isn't able to keep up.

Or Hurricanes lull in the Atlantic when the Global Warming Alarmists (like yourself) were spouting (especially after Sandy) all about how awful Global Warming was causing these horrible hurricanes?

If it's a true statement to say that climate change and higher temperatures in general will cause more powerful hurricanes, does that necessarily mean that every year there will be a large number of very powerful hurricanes?

I have doubts, serious doubts, mainly because all the horrible predictions made by all the popular spokespeople have not come true. The polar caps, the hurricanes, the extreme HOT weather just hasn't occurred the way "science" predicted it would.

Fear not my doubting friend, because scientific predictions are getting better and more accurate all the time. Here's a video which talks about the new OCO-2 satellite and how it will help us visualize what is going on in order to make more accurate predictions. Note how effective the planet is at reducing all of that CO2 in the atmosphere, it's actually very impressive. But what happens when our CO2 output starts to be more than the planet can handle, where every year begins with just a little more CO2 than the previous year? Good things aren't going to happen. So, where is that point? Have we already hit it? What if we have? How would we know? A couple CO2-monitoring satellites in space will probably be a good place to start answering those questions, so expect data from those starting next year.

That simulation is interesting to watch, but it's just a simulation of what happened in 2006. One major point where the simulation fails: at the beginning (1/1/2006) there is virtually no CO2 in the atmosphere, and you see it build up. At the end of the year (12/31/2006) there is quite a bit of CO2. I suspect that the fact that the simulation begins with very little CO2 is more for illustrative purposes of the simulation and does not actually imply that most years begin with little to no CO2. It actually looks like the opposite, winte

I've seen studies that have shown that they interfere with learning, but none (that weren't sponsored by someone trying to sell stuff) that showed they improved learning.

I'll help you since your workplace must be blocking Google. From what I was able to briefly find, the meta-analysis of current research shows three things:

1) Blended use of technology and traditional learning probably produces the best results.
2) We are still figuring out how to best use technology in the classroom, but we are improving.
3) There has not been nearly enough large scale research to "prove" any assertions about the effectiveness of individual techniques in bringing technology to the classroom.

Does the Use of Technology Improve Learning?
The Answer Lies in Design
Effective Use of Technology as a Learning Tool
Learning with Technology. Evidence that technology can, and does, support learning.
Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning. A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies
Using Technology in Education: Does It Improve Anything?

And depending on your definition of "sponsored by someone trying to sell stuff", you are probably unlikely to find many studies at all like that (a fact brought up by a couple of the above studies). Since most school districts cannot afford to spend money on unproven technologies, a large percentage of these studies have their devices donated or heavily subsidized by the device manufacturer. Here are some iPad specific ones, but even though some of them may have had iPads donated they still back up their research with actual test scores.

Five Studies to Prove the iPad’s Educational Worth
iPad improves Kindergartners literacy scores
Study Finds Benefits in Use of iPad as an Educational Tool
iPads Improve Classroom Learning, Study Finds
iPad a Solid Education Tool, Study Reports

... so we get about 500 KWh/m^2/yr ...

Poster Buchenskjoll http://slashdot.org/~Buchenskj... generously shares with us a very useful link - http://www.abaka.dk/energi/sol... - which puts it about a fourth of your estimate ... ~ 130 KWh / M^2 / year, but I get your point

Coincidentally, the National Geographic just came out with a new article - "How Green Are Those Solar Panels, Really?"
http://news.nationalgeographic...

It's worth a read

The science seems to still be out on whether earthquakes may trigger other earthquakes, but many consider it plausible: http://news.nationalgeographic... "Earthquakes Can Trigger More Earthquakes, Experts Say" "Can one earthquake cause another? A developing theory holds that quakes can pressure highly stressed fault lines and trigger subsequent seismic events" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

Wow! That's a pretty damning list. Now all you need to do is prove that they are in fact lies. The problem is, your list of lies contain lies of its own. And when it can be found that something was said that turned out to be incorrect, can you prove that those are lies as opposed to the results of early models that didn't have the sophistication of our current models? If you claim that someone is lying, then you are saying that they are attempting to deliberately mislead people.

Being wrong or making a mistake does not prove that deliberate misleading is going on, nor does a handful of claims invalidate the thousands of other claims that have been shown to be correct. Even the scientist who pointed out the mistake that the IPCC made about the glaciers still said that he believed that the errors shouldn't shake people's belief in climate science..

If you do believe that catching someone in a lie disproves what they are saying, what should we think about how you have misreported what people said? You claim that Al Gore said that "Polar ice caps would be ice free by 2010", but what he actually said was this:

Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.

So instead of the definitive claim that it would happen, he said that just some models predicted that there was just a chance that it COULD happen. A model being inaccurate does not constitute a lie. Misquoting someone to twist what they say into a lie, is actually a lie.

So did anyone really claim that there would be hurricanes more powerful than Katrina? It seems they did claim the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic that are as strong or stronger than Hurricane Katrina will increase twofold to sevenfold but that was for every 1 degree C increase, which hasn't happened the time of Katrina.

I'm getting bored, so I'll skip to the end. Your assertion that every single prediction of the IPCC from before 2007 is demonstrably wrong.

All the land between low tide and high tide is public land. But right behind that is open season.

Patience is a virtue.

We are trying to save the planet.

We're also trying not to dump our standard of living.

I hit this when there were just six posts, and someone had linked to a national geographic report detailing how politically charged this IPCC report is. It's a complete farce. It has since been downmodded to oblivion. Completely ridiculous.

Double down on non-scientific extremist rhetoric to maintain power. The IPCC isn't even being original.

Hell, even the IPCC doesn't *really* believe in Global Warming as a scientific phenomenon, but only as a political tool to go after those "evil" western democracies that "unfairly" use resources.

After all, if the IPCC thought of global warming scientifically, they wouldn't have self-censored their own report to intentionally omit data about greenhouse gas emissions from Asia... http://news.nationalgeographic...